The Freeman Movement and England

[LightinDarkness]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I rest my case.

It is so ironic how you pointed this out and then he does show up with "proof" that is exactly as you described it.

FOTLers don't seem to get it: Changing court dates because you show up to court with a gang of people and your birth certificate is not "winning." The court either legitimately thought with the entire circus of THE PERSON IS HERE VIA THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE that the defendant was not present or that you were insane, so they changed the date. The FOTL did not "win" anything.

 

[magellan]

What I find remarkable (If not suprising) about that video, is that freeman idea of a fair trial is somehow connected to "showing up with as many buddys as possible" (14???)

 

[cwalner]

There is no difference between a person and a human being.

As a fan of SF, I would like to think that if we ever encountered intelligent, sentient extra-terrestrials they would be considered persons legally, though obviously not human beings (homo sapiens).

 

[tobjai]

There is no such thing as a "legal fiction" as you believe it to be. There is no difference between a person and a human being.

And YOU accuse me of not heaving read legal philosophy? HA! But you don't even have to dig that deep. Just go and use your Black's Law Dictionary before you're trying to make assertions.

Now, why is it that the cops stood down in this video when asked to remove someone from court?

Why is it, the Bailiff shuts up, when asked "Can he do that?" (that is suing for assault based on common law)? Nobody seems to wanna answer these Qs!

I will gladly stay away when you guys stop pulling each other's legs and start answering these questions in a non-ridicule, fair, and scrutinizing manner.

Are you's capable of doing that?

 

[BobHaulk]

i don't know about anyone else but when i hear or see the phrase 'for and on the record' i can't cope.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Legalese may often seem gibberish to the layperson, but FOTL takes it to a whole new level.

 

[Chaos]

And YOU accuse me of not heaving read legal philosophy? HA! But you don't even have to dig that deep. Just go and use your Black's Law Dictionary before you're trying to make assertions.

Now, why is it that the cops stood down in this video when asked to remove someone from court?

Why is it, the Bailiff shuts up, when asked "Can he do that?" (that is suing for assault based on common law)? Nobody seems to wanna answer these Qs!

I will gladly stay away when you guys stop pulling each other's legs and start answering these questions in a non-ridicule, fair, and scrutinizing manner.

Are you's capable of doing that?

I thought you were done here? There´s really no relying on FOTLers.

 

[tobjai]

@ Chaos
I was done for last night. For now I'm back, wasting my time

@ remirol RE: Bailiff to Magistrate: "We do not appear to have the respondent in court"

Note that he didn't say "We don't have the respondent in court"!
He said "We don't appear to have..." which is nothing but assumptive, nonchalant, and of course intentional!

Also note, that there wasn't any announcement made to the public based on this assumption, but that instead the magistrates just took off.

Now, will someone finally answer my previously posted questions?

 

[D'rok]

And YOU accuse me of not heaving read legal philosophy? HA! But you don't even have to dig that deep. Just go and use your Black's Law Dictionary before you're trying to make assertions.

Now, why is it that the cops stood down in this video when asked to remove someone from court?

Why is it, the Bailiff shuts up, when asked "Can he do that?" (that is suing for assault based on common law)? Nobody seems to wanna answer these Qs!

I will gladly stay away when you guys stop pulling each other's legs and start answering these questions in a non-ridicule, fair, and scrutinizing manner.

Are you's capable of doing that?

In most common law jurisdictions, assault is both a crime and a tort. You can be charged with criminal assault, or you can be sued or sue for common assault. So, the answer to the question "can he do that" is "of course he can".

So what?

Anyone can sue anyone else for whatever wrongs, imagined or otherwise, may or may not have been committed. Such is the joy of tort law. The only remarkable thing here is that you seem to be using this basic fact to come to some bizarre conclusion about the magic powers of FOTLism. And you use the court's obvious restraint (and confusion) when dealing with a raving loony as evidence that FOTL works, when the plain fact is that in this case, as in all others, it failed spectacularly.

If St. Clair had been removed from the court by physical force, do you think he could successfully sue the officers of the court for assault (and battery)? Or do you think he would be a fool to try? Why or why not?

Now, when will you address the reality of applied FOTLism - namely that it always fails to produce a positive result other than fattening the wallets of con men.

You want to claim victory when FOTLers successfully sow confusion and chaos in a courtroom, but you never address the fact that this has no effect on the legal outcome other than to make the consequences more severe for the poor sod relying on FOTLism.

 

[Darat]

And YOU accuse me of not heaving read legal philosophy? HA! But you don't even have to dig that deep. Just go and use your Black's Law Dictionary before you're trying to make assertions.

Now, why is it that the cops stood down in this video when asked to remove someone from court?

Why is it, the Bailiff shuts up, when asked "Can he do that?" (that is suing for assault based on common law)? Nobody seems to wanna answer these Qs!

I will gladly stay away when you guys stop pulling each other's legs and start answering these questions in a non-ridicule, fair, and scrutinizing manner.

Are you's capable of doing that?

Because to be blunt the people in the court probably thought they were all a bunch of loonies and no one likes to tangle with the mentally ill.

 

[cwalner]

And YOU accuse me of not heaving read legal philosophy? HA! But you don't even have to dig that deep. Just go and use your Black's Law Dictionary before you're trying to make assertions.

Now, why is it that the cops stood down in this video when asked to remove someone from court?

Why is it, the Bailiff shuts up, when asked "Can he do that?" (that is suing for assault based on common law)? Nobody seems to wanna answer these Qs!

I will gladly stay away when you guys stop pulling each other's legs and start answering these questions in a non-ridicule, fair, and scrutinizing manner.

Are you's capable of doing that?

1. Because contrary to popular opinion cops are not aggresive neanderthal douchebags that joined the force just to bash heads

2. Because a bailiff is not necessarily a legal expert and was deferring to the judge to answer that question. as evidenced by his taking action as soon as the judge did answer.

 

[Horatius]

You want to claim victory when FOTLers successfully sow confusion and chaos in a courtroom, but you never address the fact that this has no effect on the legal outcome other than to make the consequences more severe for the poor sod relying on FOTLism.

The problem is, he has addressed this:

Why isn't simply finding you in contempt of court and jailing you one of his options?

Because he has to have juristiction first in order to be finding anything!

But that's the point, isn't it? What keeps him from "violat[ing] his own rule book"?

If you get him to do that, you have won as he was unable to get you within the rules. And like I said, some people bite the bitter apple and sacrifice some freedom for that.

He considers the more severe consequences a victory.

 

[D'rok]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I rest my case.

I don't recognize your jurisdiction! I do not contract with this commercial court! I am the highest authority and I declare CASE DISMISSED!


amidoinitrite?

 

[D'rok]

The problem is, he has addressed this:






He considers the more severe consequences a victory.

Yikes. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[D'rok]

What I find remarkable (If not suprising) about that video, is that freeman idea of a fair trial is somehow connected to "showing up with as many buddys as possible" (14???)

Freemen are swarm-bots.

 

[tobjai]

Still no answer as to why the cops refused to follow their alleged order. Well other than this one, which is bogus...

Because contrary to popular opinion cops are not aggresive neanderthal douchebags that joined the force just to bash heads

There was an "order" and it has been ignored. That has absolutely nothing to do with cops not wanting to be aggressive (as it is their job to be, when needed), and everything to do with them taking their job seriously.

 

[Darat]

Still no answer as to why the cops refused to follow their alleged order. Well other than this one, which is bogus...


There was an "order" and it has been ignored. That has absolutely nothing to do with cops not wanting to be aggressive (as it is their job to be, when needed), and everything to do with them taking their job seriously.

When are the police, lawyers and judges and so on educated about all this?

 

[Toke]

When are the police, lawyers and judges and so on educated about all this?

At the secret part of law school where the real law is taught so people know how to evade/foil the fmotl's quest for real justice.

 

[D'rok]

Still no answer as to why the cops refused to follow their alleged order. Well other than this one, which is bogus...


There was an "order" and it has been ignored. That has absolutely nothing to do with cops not wanting to be aggressive (as it is their job to be, when needed), and everything to do with them taking their job seriously.

They took their jobs very seriously and diffused the situation without resorting to violence. Bravo! And bravo also to the old gents working security.

I find it interesting that at no point during the confrontation with security were the magistrates in the courtroom. Of course, for FOTLers, this is a victory - "they left because they couldn't establish jurisdiction!". (Umm...no). The cops, who arrived well after the confrontation with security started, and who appear to have been called in the first place by the FOTLers in the gallery, had to go off-camera and into chambers to talk to the magistrates. Do we know precisely what instructions they received? Of course not. But when has accurate information ever stopped an FOTLer from making claims?

There is no evidence on that video of a police officer refusing an order from a magistrate. There is no evidence in that video of a police officer receiving an order from a magistrate. There is a whole pile of evidence of FOTLers refusing to follow the clerk's instructions, which is not at all the same thing, and of the resulting confusion amongst the old security geezers. This escalates into a mild confrontation with the police and is resolved peacefully.

I think the key point in the video comes when St. Clair gloats that the whole thing cost the Council more than the amount of the tax bill they were trying to collect. Is this the victory? Successful paper terrorism? Apparently so.

Of course, Stephen Barry is still deep in the **** and is liable for his taxes.

 

[D'rok]

For and on the record, I submit the FOTLer theme song: